Did Palestine really exist?

[GarfieldLeChat]

You saw the results of the google I did?

not gogle refference pages love


you said 99% of the people agree with you verify that claim or it's another falsehood to add to the ever growing litany of your incessent lies...

psydo facts, faux reality and contiunous insistance that you are right and all else is wrong...

please understand people aren't here to discuss you nor to wet nurse you through this tramatic period of self identiy crisis which you are having, nor do we need or want, as adults to be lectured by pig ignorant, poorly thought out 4 grade idealists with out an iota of real comprehension of the situation...

repeatdly you claim you are helping the situation, yet each time you have been asked how you refuse to state, you are evasive, dishonest, use very very very poor logic in your arguments, are an absolutist, are very passvie aggeressive boiling into incredably aggressive, quick to anger, rude, almost historically illiterate, in short your contributions to these threads have nothign to do with priogression or interaction or indeed an attempt to bridge the gap between the factions but are in reality the vain hopes of over inflated ego wishing that people would look to them ... you astro have delusions of grandure well in excess and far above where you currently are...

please contribute with out the insessent childishness...

 

[astronaut]

Whether you like it or not Garfield, anti-Semitism is accepted by 99% of people as hatred of Jews.

You can argue about it as much as you like, but you can't change this fact.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Whether you like it or not Garfield, anti-Semitism is accepted by 99% of people as hatred of Jews.

You can argue about it as much as you like, but you can't change this fact.

it's only a fact if you can vailidate it, until such time as you can do this it's nothing more than heresay...

however i'd concede that it's a misnomer which is accepted by 99% of people as hatred of the jews...

still you cannot continue in this fashion astro so please it's time to stop this nonsense these boards are not here for your ego....

 

[moono]

Astronaut;

You can argue about it as much as you like, but you can't change this fact.

But that's just the point. It can be changed. For example, you will never be able to use the term here without being asked to which Semites you refer. Neither will Rachamim or any other tar-brush wielder.

I'd say that the term died from over-use;

The Israel Lobby
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of.

So, fed-up to the gills with being accused of it, generally by scheiskopfs who think even 'shyster' deserves an accusation of 'racism', the freedom of speech lobby is recapturing the term 'Semite' for ALL Semites. Get used to it, Astronaut and the PC Plonkers. We have nicked your toy.
Vive l'Internet.

 

[Genghis Cohen]

it's only a fact if you can vailidate it, until such time as you can do this it's nothing more than heresay...

Paedophiles are genetically, more similar to lobsters than they are to the rest of us, theres no evidence for this but it is scientific fact.

 

[astronaut]

however i'd concede that it's a misnomer which is accepted by 99% of people as hatred of the jews...

Thank you. I appreciate it.

still you cannot continue in this fashion astro so please it's time to stop this nonsense these boards are not here for your ego....

I think my convictions are as strong as other people here, and that I'm just as stubborn as others.

Having said that, I do apologize when I realize I'm wrong, as I did about "shyster" not being an anti-Semitic term, and I also give support to people I usually disagree with, as I did when rachamim argued with moono about something when moono was correct.

 

[astronaut]

But that's just the point. It can be changed.

Why should it be changed though?

Why should we change the name of any concept?

The web is not a web, it is a networks of files sitting on servers - does that mean we should change "web" to "filenetwork" or something?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

A We have taken back our toy.
Vive l'Internet.

i think you'll find...

 

[Jonti]

All I am arguing about is the use of terminology, and how it is being misappropriated for political usage.

This language is my language.

From the start, the term anti-semitic was misappropriation of the term semitic. This misappropriation was for political motives (that of making hatred of Jewishness or Judaism seem more respectable).

Many strident supporters of Zionism like the term anti-semitic. Others take a different stance. They think, and I concur, that it would be better if we used words accurately; that this would present difficulties to the racist agenda. So we are going to change the meaning of anti-semitic away from its original, racist inspiration. We will likely use Judaeophobia instead. And we will use anti-semitic to mean "racism against semites in general" rather than "racism against a particular subgroup of semites".

But why is anti-semitic being given its etymologically correct meaning now? Why was the obvious and logical meaning not adopted earlier? Part of the reason has to be that the terms anti-semite and anti-semitic have been worked to death. They have been used just as insults, as insult terms to slur folks who support those Semites who are under a harsh military occupation (by other Semites) in Palestine. Another part of the reason, I think, is that the term homophobia has proved useful to marginalise and ridicule fascists. The implication is that foolish, irrational fears are what motivate attacks on gay people. Similar irrational attacks happen against Jews. So Judaeophobia fits the situation -- and serves better than the now discredited anti-semitism.

And as a bonus, anti-semitic is rescued from the ignominy of ending up empty of any sensible meaning, and its short history is given an interesting new chapter.

 

[astronaut]

now discredited anti-semitism

In whose view exactly is it discredited?

Certainly not in the view of people who have suffered from it.

From the start, the term anti-semitic was misappropriation of the term semitic. This misappropriation was for political motives (that of making hatred of Jewishness or Judaism seem more respectable).

The term was used before political Zionism was formulated - and was used by anti-semites to give credibility to their views.

Rachamim18, a strident supporter of Zionism, has declared that he wants Jews to be hated.

Well if you want to pay any attention to Rachamim, that is your problem.

and its short history is given an interesting new chapter.

So all literature written about anti-Semitism in the past is now open to wide misinterpretation in the future.

Therefore, logically, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is now an anti-Arab text, because Arabs are Semites.

It is misguided to change the meaning of a widely accepted term to suit political motivations -- yet it is being done blindly by you and moono.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Whether you like it or not Garfield, anti-Semitism is accepted by 99% of people as hatred of Jews.

You can argue about it as much as you like, but you can't change this fact.

If you submitted a paper to a tutor stating that "99% of x prefer y to z" but provided nothing solid to support it, would you expect the tutor to tolerate that, or return your paper to you with several red lines through it?

You're not stating a fact, you're stating an as yet unsupported opinion (your google doesn't count. It doesn't reflect fact, just prevalence on one media node).

Perhaps a little more articulacy and a little less arrogance on your part would make people more willing to listen to what you have to say, but as I recall you believe you have the right to "get in peoples' faces" with your views.

 

[moono]

Jonti #159 Yay to that.

The true anti-Semites would be, I'd guess, the British and the French, both having wreaked recent imperialistic havoc and failing to correctly address their errors in the UN Security Council.
America too is surely guilty of anti-Semitism, through its support of the immigration of hundreds of thousands on non-Semites into Semitic regions. Again, another Security Council failure, the daddy of them all, more pro-Israeli vetoes than all the vetoes of all the other members put together. That's real anti-Semitism.

 

[astronaut]

If you submitted a paper to a tutor stating that "99% of x prefer y to z" but provided nothing solid to support it, would you expect the tutor to tolerate that, or return your paper to you with several red lines through it?

I just need to look in the dictionary to find out what it means.

You need to prove that the dictionary should be changed.

 

[astronaut]

Yay to that.

The true anti-Semites would be, I'd guess, the British and the French, both having wreaked recent imperialistic havoc and failing to correctly address their errors in the UN Security Council.
America too is surely guilty of anti-Semitism, through its support of the immigration of hundreds of thousands on non-Semites into Semitic regions. Again, another Security Council failure, the daddy of them all, more pro-Israeli vetoes than all the vetoes of all the other members put together. That's real anti-Semitism.

Racism on urban75 -- plain and simple.

 

[nino_savatte]

Aye, let's not forget the rampant anti-Semitism that existed in the US until fairly recently. The trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, for instance, could be seen as more of an expression of anti-Semitism rather than a trial that put two people to death for espionage.

This anti-Semitism has now been extended to include Arab-Americans and we have seen a rise in attacks on persons who "look Arabic" since 9/11. Of course anti-Jewish sentiment still lurks beneath the surface. Scratch a rapturist and you'll find a vile racist underneath.

 

[nino_savatte]

Racism on urban75 -- plain and simple.

Quel racisme sur Urban75?

Evidence please.

 

[moono]

Astronaut;

Racism on urban75 -- plain and simple.

No, not racism. That particular redoubt is not going to do you any good this time.

 

[Jonti]

In whose view exactly is (the term anti-semitism) discredited?

I suggest that those Semites who suffer racism but find the term anti-semite does not apply to their oppressors find the term useless for their purposes.

 

[Gmart]

Faffing about labelling is not going to add to this discussion.

What intrigues me is that after WW2, the Jews had a lot of sympathy, and quite rightly so. Now after taking on the mantle of chief oppressor with the biggest guns and invading whatever one might label the land, all this good will is disappearing fast and soon it will be quite all right to be anti-jew because of the actions of the Israelis.

If only someone had thought that they had the opportunity to create a great, free nation in harmony with the Arabs. With the money and know-how of the Jews, a secular and united state, with complete equality for all could have been a beacon for all nations. What a shame! And with the current attitude and lack of compromise it'll all end in tears and probably yet more blood.

 

[Jonti]

The term was used before political Zionism was formulated - and was used by anti-semites to give credibility to their views.

Political Zionism was formulated, of course, because the opportunity was there already ...

The term "Zionism" was apparently coined in 1891 by the Austrian publicist Nathan Birnbaum, to describe the new ideology, but it was used retroactively to describe earlier efforts and ideas to return the Jews to their homeland for whatever reasons, and it is applied to Evangelical Christians who want people of the Jewish religion to return to Israel in order to hasten the second coming.*

Yes, Judaeophobes coined the term anti-semitic. It sounds so much more respectable than Judaeophobe, don't you think?


*(emphasis added source)

 

[moono]

Gmarthews;

soon it will be quite all right to be anti-jew because of the actions of the Israelis.

I don't know about 'soon' but their actions certainly are disgusting and alienating. That's why it's important not to let 'Israeli' and 'Zionist' become synonymous and also 'Israeli' and 'Jew'. There is absolutely no excuse for blaming Jews for the actions of Zionists, many Jews being openly and actively opposed to Zionism anyway.

A great many Isaelis are Arabs and Muslims and the numbers are growing. Preventing apartheid in Israel will ensure a future regional harmony. Allowing it to flourish will promote endless war. If a state of future harmony entails the shelving of the notion of a 'Jewish' State, well so what ? The scriptures were wrong. Big deal.

 

[ICB]

all this good will is disappearing fast and soon it will be quite all right to be anti-jew because of the actions of the Israelis.

But it won't be any more than it's acceptable to be anti-American because of the attitudes and actions of the US govt. or religious right.

The terminology thing is important.

I think "anti-semitism" has been discredited due to its slack use by those who decry any criticism of the Israeli government or the state of Israel with accusations of anti-semitism when there's not necessarily any correlation at all. In such cases the terms anti-zionism, anti-judaism or judaeophobic may be more accurate, but then again they may not be, such criticisms might be motivated by a healthy interest in upholding human rights and no more.

There are numerous bodies and individuals that make this mistake, including the chief rabbi on occasion. Often the people they are accusing of such a motivitation turn out to be Jews themselves (David Baddiel springs to mind) making such nomenclature patently risible and thereby undermining whatever legitimate point they may have to make, hence the importance of accurate and appropriate terminology.

 

[Gmart]

who cares! I mean really. I'm sure that we are all aware of how easy it is to discriminate against those who are different from ourselves, and based on simplistic stereotypes.

Lets try and actully discuss the issues rather than just arguing over fine line differences in terminology please??

 

[Jonti]

All literature written about anti-Semitism in the past is now open to wide misinterpretation in the future.

Therefore, logically, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is now an anti-Arab text, because Arabs are Semites.

It is misguided to change the meaning of a widely accepted term to suit political motivations -- yet it is being done blindly by you and moono.

I don't think you need worry about words changing their meaning. It happens all the time and is not going to confuse educated persons. But if it helps to make the Protocols of the Elders of Zion seem ridiculous to the ignoramuses that presently give it credence, so much the better.

Thanks for the political guidance. I'll bear it in mind. But no, we do understand what we are about, and explain ourselves clearly. The change is not being brought about blindly, not at all.

 

[Gmart]

I appreciate the basic point that many are hiding behind terminology, and that we are all free to criticise based on the facts as we can perceive them.

Anyone who simply hides behind name-calling is not worth engaging with.

The basic issue here is that the land in question was invaded by the Israelis, and that the Arabs have not gained sufficiently, or even given the option to create a world they want to live in.

I blame religion and though some here are claiming that Israel is a secular state but the inescapable fact is that many Palestinians feel so desparate that they become suicide bombers. They evidently have very little to live for and are not getting a fair crack of the whip there. This is the compromise that Israelis are avoiding, but which as the instigators it is their duty to make sure does not happen.

Sadly they are doing the oppostie and are building a wall which is annexing the land which they want. While the US looks on without the guts to fight for what the US is suppose to stand for. Different people together with inalienable rights. Shame on them too.

 

[moono]

Gmarthews;

Lets try and actully discuss the issues rather than just arguing over fine line differences in terminology please??

Language is extremely important, particularly in law, and you shouldn't make light of attempts to refine it.

Many thousands of Semites, Israeli and Palestinian, have died because of a failure to agree upon semantics. Resolution 242, the cornerstone resolution even in today's Palestinian border disputes, was drafted in English and French, the two official languages of the UN. In French, the language understood and accepted by the Arabs, the resolution read that 'Israel must withdraw from the territories occupied ', using the definite article 'the' to emphasise that Israel must withdraw from all occupied territories.

In English, the language chosen to be understood by the Israelis, the definite article is absent. The resolution reads that 'Israel must withdraw from territories occupied' without , at a stretch of imagination, being specific.

This, believe it or not, is the reason for shysters arguing that the occupied territories are 'disputed'.

This critical piece of drafting was the work of the British at the fag-end of Empire, a nation that found itself with a surplus of Semites on its hands. Lord Caradon, the scribe responsible for the bloody ambiguity, claimed afterwards that it was deliberate, the resolution being intended as 'a punt' without clarified solution.

Semantics cost lives. Let Semites be Semites, not exclusively Jews.

 

[astronaut]

is not going to confuse educated persons.

It is the uneducated people I worry about, although there are plenty of misguided educated people in the world as well.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

This language is my language.

From the start, the term anti-semitic was misappropriation of the term semitic. This misappropriation was for political motives (that of making hatred of Jewishness or Judaism seem more respectable).

Many strident supporters of Zionism like the term anti-semitic. Others take a different stance. They think, and I concur, that it would be better if we used words accurately; that this would present difficulties to the racist agenda. So we are going to change the meaning of anti-semitic away from its original, racist inspiration. We will likely use Judaeophobia instead. And we will use anti-semitic to mean "racism against semites in general" rather than "racism against a particular subgroup of semites".

But why is anti-semitic being given its etymologically correct meaning now? Why was the obvious and logical meaning not adopted earlier? Part of the reason has to be that the terms anti-semite and anti-semitic have been worked to death. They have been used just as insults, as insult terms to slur folks who support those Semites who are under a harsh military occupation (by other Semites) in Palestine. Another part of the reason, I think, is that the term homophobia has proved useful to marginalise and ridicule fascists. The implication is that foolish, irrational fears are what motivate attacks on gay people. Similar irrational attacks happen against Jews. So Judaeophobia fits the situation -- and serves better than the now discredited anti-semitism.

And as a bonus, anti-semitic is rescued from the ignominy of ending up empty of any sensible meaning, and its short history is given an interesting new chapter.

well summised

more voer i'd like to ad that the concept of language is very very important when discribing the actions or reactions with in a conflict zone. The reason for this is so as to allow accurate decription of the facts on the gorund as observed without allowing oneself to be drawn into the conflict itself.

This is the seperation commonly known as objective journalism; of course in reality there is no such thing as we all interpret things different when we perceive them and relate those perceptions back based largley on our recall and also from the pov of our own experince. Regardless of the cavet the abiltiy to remove ones self from the situation you are with in and still bea ble to report objectively without bias is an important thing and prevents people from conjouring up new fantastical revisions of history.

these revisions allow the misuse of words, misnomers, heresay and bias and prevent accurate history from being told. As the informaiton age has progressed we are able to prevent such things from happening more readly as there is a higher access to instant reporing tools... however, again with out the obejctivity and the journalistic version of the hippicratic oath (objectivity) all news/informaiton/history would be that of the victor....

from alexander the great through to ariel sharron the use of proiganda has been preverlent in order to stur up the natives to fight and defend...

just remember who controls the past controls the present and who controls the present controls the future...

It is not acceptble, objective, accurate, empowering to use misnomers; to misuuse words phrases sayings...

it is however padering to the tools of propaganda...


so i'll ask you as i do in eveyr thread astro ...

who you are working for??

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

It is the uneducated people I worry about, although there are plenty of misguided educated people in the world as well.

yes you appear to be one of them good of you to recognise your own failings ....

my next question is what are you going ot do about it...???

 

[rachamim18]

GMarthews: OK, I got it. Your argument is that I am in "complete denial" andmy "arguments are not convincing" because "the Israelisd were invaders" and "original oppressors." Then, you are maintaining Jews have no history on that land? Are you maintaining that "Palestinians" are indigenous to said land and have unique customs and characteristiscs? Your whole argument amounts to, "it is like this because I say so and if you do not agree you are just wrong. BRILLANT.


I "hide behind facts?" Try providing some yourself please, or at least disputing mine WITH PROOF.

"Why are so many 'Palestinians' unhappy?" Well, you mean aside from having leaders who rob them, other Arab nations who use them as pawns and let them rot, and being surrounded by rampant unemployment and high rates of drug abuse? Hmmm...that is a hard one. Maybe it is because their ancestors pissed their inheritance down the drain in forgoing statehood for armed confrontation.


"Arabs are not given an opportunity to succeed in Israel." 30 years ago you were pretty much right, sad to say. That was criminal in my mind. Today though things are much different. Israeli -Arabs have one of the higest standards of living in the Mid-East. You want compare Arabs' way of life in any other Arab nation?

"2 State Solution will never work." Sorry, neither Jew nor Arab wants a "single nation. In fact, notice how many Israeli-Arabs have moved to PA Territory? Tells you something, doesn't it?


Astronaut: Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but a word's popular definition does not change it's literal definition. Do you know what colloquial means? Fact is, Jews were never the only Semites. They were however the only Semites most Europeans ever saw. This is why Europeans coined the phrase. Of course today people live in a wider world. People are also generally better educated.

How will correctly defining "anti-Semitism"" hurt Jews?" the only thing about the word hurting Jews is the coopting of a word that is erroneously identified with them.

Do you call HAMAS "anti-Semitic?" they wish to exterminate every Jew on the plabnet. they certainly "hate Jews." Ergo, in your words they would be "anti-Semitic" despite being Semites themself. Are you beginning to see the folly in your argument?

PK: Good post on responding to Astronaut on "anti-Semitism."

Garfield: Suprisingly good post with the source of the phrase's history. Too bad you then messed it all up with the nonsense about "Zionists always trying to portray themselves as eternal victims." You think that "Palestinians" suffer without a state? They have only considered themsleves a people for a few decades. Imagine Jews who have been [mostly] stateless since the Roman era. I suggest you do a bit of research about the Jews treatment in every nation they traveled to, with the exception of ancient China.